sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arth, Betschwanden, Rapperswil, Unterwalden, Uznach, Werner Stauffacher

On the History of the Glarner Families, Particularly Those of the Sernf Valley. A Medley of Pictures from Past Days. (Zur Geschichte glarnerischer Geschlechter, derjenigen des Sernftales insbesondere. Allerlei Bilder aus vergangenen Tagen) by Gottfried Heer

With a Coat of Arms

Printing and publishing by Rud. Tschudy, , 1920 Translated by Sue Wolf

[All lettered footnotes and information in brackets were added by the translator]

X. THE STAUFFACHERS [pg. 94-113]

“At the same time there was in [Canton] one who was named Staupacher and who lived at Steinen on this side of the bridge. He had built a beautiful stone house. Now at that time a Gessler was overlord there, in the [Habsburg] empire's name. One day he came and rode past there and summoned Staupacher and asked him who the beautiful dwelling belonged to. Staupacher answered him and spoke unhappily: Gracious Lord, it is yours, and my fiefa, and dared not say that it was his; he dreaded the lord so much. The lord rode on from there. Now Staupacher was an intelligent man, and also enterprising; he also had an intelligent wife, and he thought the matter over and, for this reason, had great concern and was worried because of the lord, that he would destroy his life and property. His wife noticed this and did as wives still do today and had wondered what was the matter with him or why he was unhappy. That he would not tell her. Finally she pleaded with him with many questions, that he tell her his concern, and spoke: Be so good and tell me your trouble, although they say: Wives give indifferent advice ̶ who knows what God will do! In any case, she asked him so much in their intimacy that he told her what his concern was. She went to him and encouraged him by her urging and spoke: It is indeed to help him; and asked him whether he did not know someone in [Canton] Uri who was so familiar to him that he could pour out his trouble to him, and told him of the Fürst family and the Zur Frauen family. He answered her: Yes, he knew it well, and thought over his wife's advice, and went to Uri and remained there until he found someone who also had the same concern. She had also urged him to ask in [Canton] Unterwalden; because she thought there were also people there who unwillingly endured such oppression.”

Thus reports to us the “Chronicle” of the White Book, which was written about the year 1470 and which is found today in the State Archives in [earlier Canton Unterwalden, now Canton ]. Principally on the basis of these White Book reports, after that, in the following 16th century, our famous cantonal citizen, Aegid. Tschudi, had reported again, with some literary ornaments, the history of the 3 confederates, the founders of the first Swiss Federation, Walter a Fief - property or rights granted by an overlord to a vassal in return for the vassal's service to the lord. The vassal could use the fief as long as he remained loyal to the lord. The fief was the central institution of the feudal society. [SW] Fürst, and Arnold from the Melch valley [Canton Unterwalden]; and, on the basis of these reports of Aegidius Tschudi, after that, the great author, , in his “Wilhelm Tell”, again had sketched for us the character of one Werner Stauffacher and his intelligent spouse and counselor, Gertrude Stauffacher, from Steinen, that you are all acquainted with.

On the other hand, you also know that for more than 50 years a great dispute held sway among the scholars, not only over the authenticity of the marksman, , but also about the characters of Walter Fürst, Werner Stauffacher and Arnold from the Melch valley. There is also no shortage today of those who also accept everything that Tschudi and Schiller reported to us of Werner Stauffacher solely as fiction. However, with that the historical critic might yet go too far. Not only can many a thing yet be truth that is not written down on parchment pages (the earlier centuries were not yet so paper-rich and so fond of writing as our time, and thus many an important event might happen without it being recorded immediately). But also, the most mundane documents produce the proof that the family of the Stauffachers, or Staupachers, as the White Book spells the name, were situated during several generations on the peaks of Old Canton Schwyz1. The brothers, Werner and Heinrich Stauffacher, who alternately held the office of district overseer from 1309-1338, were the sons of a Rudolf of Stauffacher, who had already held the same office in 1275. The father of this Rudolf Stauffacher was, however, unquestionably that Werner of Stauffach who, in a 1267 document, was already referred to as “the older”, who, therefore, was certainly no longer a boy at the rebellion of 1247.

An authentic certified representative of the Stauffachers in Canton Schwyz, then, is, by no means, lacking. On the other hand, the question is whether the Stauffachers of the Sernf [river] valley [Canton Glarus] are related to the Stauffachers from Schwyz2. The tradition affirms it. Tradition has it that the Schwyzer Stauffachers were supposed to have come over the Pragel [pass] to Glarus in 1528. If this tradition is correct, thus the conjecture suggests itself that the emigration (or flight) to Glarus was a result of the religious movement of that time. From , the Evangelical doctrine also found followers in Canton Schwyz3. However, as the V old cantonsb had also demanded from Glarus that they should remain with the “old genuine Christian customs”, with the Mass, the veneration of the saints, etc.,4 and as, in 1529, a Pastor Kaiser, from Schwerzenbach [Canton Zürich], who had proclaimed the gospel in its territory of [now Canton St. Gallen], was captured and sentenced to death, thus they also suppressed all Evangelical movements in their own cantons with extreme harshness. Indeed, on the 29th of May in 1597, at Schwyz, 2 confessors of the Evangelical faith were burned “in A Fire” after a short interrogation. The Stauffachers were inclined to the Evangelical doctrine, thus, for this reason, it was advisable for them to flee over the Pragel to Glarus.

1 August Bernoulli, The Legend of Tell and Stauffacher, pg. 34. Compare with Oechsli, The Beginnings of the Swiss Confederation. 2 That the belief was circulated by the Stauffachers of the Sernf valley that they originated here from the Stauffachers of Steinen is demonstrated by an entry in the Matt baptism book from the year 1716: “Werner Stauffacher, son of Johannes St., of Weissenberg, baptized in 1716, on Oct. 28th. He is named after, and is a descendant of, the first Confederate St.” 3 Compare Finsler, Köhler and Rüegg, Ulrich Zwingli, An Anthology of His Writings, pg. 41 ff. 419. b The V old cantons - Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden [the original 3], plus Luzerne and . These remained Catholic in the Reformation. [SW] 4 G. Heer, The Reformation in Canton Glarus, On The 400th Year Commemoration, pg. 41 ff. Still another link, which crossed over from Arth [Canton Schwyz] to Glarus. In 1903/04, a Mr. Friedr. Hegi, c. h. [Confoederatio Helvetica = Swiss Confederation = ], who was interested in a doctoral dissertation concerning the Stauffachers, wrote me that Councillor of States Leonh. Blumer had informed him of an Alp regulations document in which a Stauffacher from Arth was named as administrator of the Mühlebach Alp [near , Canton Glarus]. Mr. Hegi requested that I intercede with Councillor of States Blumer, in order to send the document in question to him (and States Archivist Durrer) for inspection. However, Councillor of States Blumer was, at that time, busy with so many things, because of the Sernf valley railway, the Kurhaus Elm [Elm spa-hotel], his own factory establishment, and his Councillor of States seat, that he found no time to search for the document in question. I, for my part, was also a very busy man as pastor of Betschwanden [Canton Glarus], administrator of Braunwald Sanatorium [Canton Glarus], etc., and might also at that time have shown less interest than today in the families of the Sernf valley and the Stauffachers ̶ the matter remains unfinished; indeed, even until today, the cited Alp regulations document from Councillor of States Blumer has not come to my sight, and I also, therefore, do not know whether the information from Mr. Hegi agreed with the truth or whether an error existed. The event sounds not exactly unlikely. From a 1416 Alp document we know that the churches of Arth were in possession of 160 Rinderalps [peaks] of the Mühlebach Alp,5 and this, on the other hand, should be authenticated by the local Stauffacher anniversary book for Arth around the end of the 15th century. That a Stauffacher from Arth was administrator of the Mühlebach Alp, therefore, sounds not so unlikely. However, were that the case, then also a further explanation for the emigration of the Stauffachers to Canton Glarus would be understood by it.

Be that as it may, we find the Stauffachers in Glarus around the middle of the 16th century ̶ still not in the Sernf valley, but, indeed, in the capital market-town of Glarus. There, at that time, the establishment6 of a “hospital” (forerunner of the later alms-house) was carried out. In the collection taken up for it 2 Stauffachers also took part: Peter Stauffacher called Murer, 50 Pounds (= 25 Fl.) and Fridly Stauffacher called Maurer, likewise 50 Pounds. If both donated large offerings like these, so that only a small number of donors contributed just as much, thus it was doubtless the indication of wealth, and perhaps also indications of thanks for the friendly reception that they found in Glarus. However, why did they assume the surname of “Maurer” or “Murer”? Among the donors for the hospital is found also a P e t e r l i Maurer on the Sandc, who donated 3 Gulden for the aforesaid purpose, and, in a 1560 register of houses, are indicated as Number 75, the Murer's house on the church estate, that had 2 cooking fireplaces, and Number 97, Franz Murer in the Oaks. Here the possibility suggests itself that the Stauffachers who fled from Arth found hospitable accommodation with a Murer and, for this reason, also in conformity with him, discarded their surname; also possibly, that the mother of both Peter and Fridly Stauffacher entered into a second marriage with a Murer and, for this reason, her children of the

5 Document Book of Canton Glarus, III, pg. 24 6 Dr. N. Tschudi, “The Old Hospital at Glarus”, in the Historical Yearbook, Number 16, pg. 54 ff. c Flurname - field name. People with identical names were differentiated by adding their occupation or a descriptive term for the area where they lived. [SW] first marriage received the surname “Murer” to honor their Glarner step-father7. We don't know. What we do know is that, in the second half of the 16th century, the Stauffachers had moved on to the Sernf valley. Already, in the just cited register of houses drawn up around 1560, we find no more Stauffachers in Glarus itself; on the other hand, the oldest baptism book of the Matt commune, for the time of 1595-1617, had reported 7 Stauffacher children. In addition, their fathers, Uli and Jakob, also still carried the surname of Murer,8 by which the origin in Glarus of the Stauffachers called Murer is adequately proven.

Even b e f o r e 1595, one of the Matt Stauffachers had also been selected by the Glarner Landsgemeinded as the Landvogte of one of the lord’s domains under joint administration: Dietrich Stauffacher, Landvogt in the Rheintal [Canton St. Gallen] in 1582 and 83.9 An after- effect to the administration of the cantonal vassal territory in the Rheintal is what was discussed in 1595 at a conference of the member states that ruled the Rheintal territory: Dietrich Stauffacher of Glarus renewed the request to permit him and his sons to build on their inherited properties in the Rheintal with their own bondsmen or to be able to sell them with dispensation of the perpetual promisef, as he must sell debts of half of his properties at Glarus or in the Rheintal. He had resigned his appointment. (Legislative Record 277, k.) In 1596, Mayor Krepfinger of Luzerne and Cantonal President Kuhn of Uri stated at a following conference that they could not agree to the exemption from the perpetual promise of the (partly purchased, partly inherited) properties of the brothers Joachim and David Zollikofer and Captain Dietrich Stauffacher, since they had no authority over it.10 In October 1602, Dietrich Stauffacher, whom the people of Matt had meanwhile selected as a member of the council and to whom the 1602 had conveyed the position of c a n t o n a l c a p t a i n, was authorized, with his colleague, the Melchior Marti mentioned above on pg. 71 [in “The Martis” chapter (pg. 12 in the SW translation)], as well as delegates of member states Bern11 (Mayor Rudolf Sager and Colonel Hans Jakob of Diesbach), Luzerne (Mayor Ludwig Schürpf, Knight, and Banneret nobleman Kaspar Pfiffer), Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, , Freiburg, , , both Rhodes, the abbot of St. Gallen, the city of St. Gallen, the Upper [or Grey] League, the God's-House- and the Ten-Jurisdiction-Leagues [these III Leagues are

7 Jost Tschudi, the well-known head of Glarner political affairs for many years, cantonal president and commander in the old Zürich war, was still called “Jost Schiesser”, as Tagsatzung* representative, originally in honor of his step-father, Gabriel Schiesser, and only later on “Jost Tschudi”, after his own father. * Tatsatzung - the legislative and executive council of the , from its beginnings in the 14th century until the formation of the Swiss federal state in 1848. Its power was very limited, since the cantons were essentially sovereign. [SW] 8 A 1569 legal decision also named an “Uli Murer” at Matt in the Sernf valley. d Landsgemeinde - the Popular Assembly, which is the Glarus cantonal legislative body. It is made up of all the citizens of the communes who have full citizenship rights. [SW] e Landvogt – an administrative and judicial official of a cantonal government in a vassal territory [SW] 9 Above, pg. 54 [in “The Beglingers” chapter (pg. 3 in the SW translation)]. f ewige Verspruch - perpetual promise [also known as the right of pre-emption] - the unlimited right of first refusal by its holder [an heir, e.g.], concerning any anticipated sales by a property's current owner. [SW] 10 As later information shows, the properties remained in the possession of D. St. and his family. I have the impression that, during his rule as Landvogt, St. had been lured into property speculation. Jakob Kundert from Rüti also reproached him, that he often looked too deeply into the glass (Histor. Yearbook, XVI, pg. 31): “It hurts a Landvogt badly when he fills himself up, that he must have 2 people to lead him home.” Kundert was certainly a first-class slanderer! 11 Zürich did not participate, still clinging to the Zwinglian tradition of forbidding all foreign military service; for this reason began the sequence of delegates. now united as Canton Graubunden] and the cities of Rottwil [Baden] and Mülhausen [Alsace] — therefore, in the more numerous and distinguished communities — to the renewal of their alliance in Paris. The alliance renewal took place in the church of Nôtre Dame. At first, the confederate envoys, one after the other, took the solemn oath on the Holy Gospel, during which the envoys of each old canton that has [military] reserves in the alliance, also swear to this together, then the oath was taken by the king.12 After concluding this ceremony with the ringing of bells and the thunder of cannon, the Ambrosian Te Deum laudamus [“Thee, O God, We Praise”] was sung, and then, in the bishop's palace, in the presence of the king and the princes, a splendid banquet was held, at which the king drank to the prosperity of the envoys of the Confederacy. After an audience had taken place, the wishes of the confederates were reported to the king by a committee, to the effect that he must increase the yearly remuneration, protect the merchants with their licenses, cancel the new tolls and burdens, provide for restoration of the products permitted to the Zollikofers, increase the pensions of the students in Paris, improve the salary of the guards, and pay the pension falling on Candlemas [2 February] before the end of this year. The reply given after that on the 25th of October, however, did not satisfy in all parts.

At the farewell audience, the continuance of the alliance beyond 3 years to 5 years following the king's death was conceded to the king at his request, after which he renewed the guarantee of his particular affection for the confederates and how he had thought of the alliance in all parts. (The royal councils promised the VI Catholic old cantons that the pension which fell due on last Candlemas and the pension falling on next Candlemas will get disbursed on next Easter. City Clerk Wagner, who had worked a lot with the negotiations over the renewal of the alliance, but had been poorly rewarded by the French ambassador, placed the petition to the old cantons and associates that were in the alliance around the windows in his newly-built house.)

We have reproduced here the entire farewell together with both the additions (the “separate peace” of the Catholic old cantons and the petition of Mr. Wagner), since the entirety gives us an instructive picture of the foreign politics at that time. The aforesaid is hardly particularly pleasant for us as Glarners and Swiss; on the other hand it is still perhaps interesting to accompany the Sernf valley councillor to Paris and in the presence of the royal domain. I presume that he knew his etiquette well. In 1605 he was advanced to vice-president. As such, he was allowed by old Cantonal President Jost Pfändler to carry the written petition to the delegates of the IV Evangelical cities, who were assembled on the 2nd of June in 1605 in [Canton] , “to be helpful to him with the next distribution of money for the payment of his response to the leaders of the Navarra [Spain] military expedition (it was received for further consideration)”.13

On the 1st of July in 1607, he then attended a joint confederate “annual accounting and Tagsatzung of the XIII old cantons” in Baden [Canton ], for a first time as “cantonal president” and only delegate of member state Glarus (all the other 12 member states were represented by 2 envoys). Of the transactions that the Tagsatzung concerned itself with, the matter of the III Leagues might have concerned the Glarner delegate the most, in that Glarus had been in the closest alliance with them for centuries. Lately the conflict between the French- Venetian and the Spanish-Milan parties had thrown the population there into hot-tempered agitation, for which reason now one and now another commune “raised its troops” and

12 Henry IV, of Navarra [Spain], King of France, 1589-1610. 13 Swiss Legislative Record, V a, 1744. sometimes caused bloody vengeance. The Tagsatzung decided at the negotiation of this dispute “in no way to fail to delegate envoys from 4 old cantons, namely Zürich, Luzerne, Schwyz and G l a r u s, to the III Leagues, and gave them the following instruction: they shall announce to the Leagues the greeting of the confederates, explain to them why they were delegated, and demand: 1. That the vengeance and the recent troop-gathering be undone and no execution against anyone be undertaken until at the arrival of the undermentioned confederate envoys; 2. That they determine the time and meeting place where and when the confederate envoys might meet with the councils and communes, and that a safe, secure conduct be written out in authoritative form not only for the confederate envoys, but also for all fugitive League members”14.

On the 2nd of September in 1607, the Tagsatzung met again in Baden [Canton Aargau], Cantonal President Stauffacher was again present as the only representative of member state Glarus, and they were in a position to receive the information15 that it had been decided by the majority of the League communes, on the question put to them, “to entrust the final settlement of their lengthy dispute to the XIII and associated old cantons and to ask them, in an entirely friendly way, to cease the preparations for war and immediately to consult, by means of an envoy, with the envoys of the Leagues on the most appropriate means to restore the peace”.16

On the 29th of June in 1608, Cantonal President Stauffacher attended, for a third time, a confederate Tagsatzung in Baden [Canton Aargau], which, above all, had listened to the differences of opinion between Zürich and the V old cantons. On the 10th of November of the same year he also attended still another deliberating conference in Rheineck [Canton St. Gallen]. At a preceding annual accounting at Baden, the Rheintal affairs, appeals and petitions were referred to one of the councils held in the Rheintal, and Zürich, Luzerne, Schwyz and G l a r u s were authorized, in the name of the ruling old cantons, to delegate envoys to that place for this purpose.17 Since Stauffacher, for his part, as former Landvogt in the Rheintal, was familiar with the situation in that place, it was assumed that he had represented Glarus in addition. On the other hand, that should be the last confederate mission to the fulfillment of which he had been dispatched.

The son of Cantonal President Stauffacher, Hans Dietrich Stauffacher , played a singular, but not at all praiseworthy, role. It was at the time of the 30 Years War, which transformed into a wasteland, destroyed the life of millions, and also, in our Swiss Confederacy, frightened all high-born, patriotic sympathizers so much because, more than once, it also threatened to throw its waves over the frontier of the Confederacy and it was not always possible, as a result of the circumstances, to obtain the necessary strict neutrality.

14 Swiss Legislative Record, V, 1, pg. 830. 15 In the same place, pg. 847. 16 J. H. Tschudi, pg. 516 f. 17 Swiss Legislative Record V, 1 pg. 895. Without being invited for that purpose by the general Tagsatzung, an envoy from Uri and Unterwalden ̶ paradoxically ̶ also appeared at the same conference in Rheineck. This, then, caused the conference also to request both Appenzells to send an envoy. These wrote, however, and entrusted it to the envoys who were present to take action on the matters (church and faith matters, sale of goods, justice matters, fishing, perpetual promise, etc.) Around the end of this disastrous war ̶ on the 14th of August in 1644 ̶ Hans Dietrich Stauffacher appeared before the Luzerne council, but as a gentleman from the nobility, as Joh. Dietrich von Stauffach, and what had startled his family members even more, not as an envoy of honorable member state Glarus, but ̶ he, the son of a Glarner cantonal president ̶ as extraordinary envoy of the imperial majesty of the German empire. By means of a letter of the 31st of July in 1644, Emperor Ferdinand III certified “his faithful Johann Dietrich von Stauffach” as his envoy, who, as the credentials18 said, was supposed to insist on the strict discharge by the confederates of the hereditary agreement concluded with Archduke Sigmund of [1446 at Konstanz, Baden], since just at that time the Further Austrian land [mainly south Alsace and Breisgau] was threatened by the enemies of the emperor. In detailed instructions to “Captain von Stauffach” was written out exactly what he should bring forward with the confederate member states of Luzerne, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Glarus and both Appenzell Rhodes, and also the St. Gallen abbot and city.19 He should, as the credentials said, not only insist on notice and execution of the hereditary agreement, but even “hand-violent help” for the reconquest of such “land and people” as had been initially taken away, referring to that, in the past, the confederates helped the House of Austria [the Habsburgs] to again [1474] get the Further Austrian lands that had been mortgaged [1469-1474] to Duke Karl of Burgundy [Charles the Bold]. In addition, our Lord von Stauffach should emphasize that the confederates receive a yearly pension since the agreement with Emperor Maximilian I [1499], so that each shall have “a suitable overseer” in his old canton, so that the archdukes of Austria “are not mortgaged yet are reached” by those “who might be so bold as to invade them and to administer law and justice again.” Moreover, the confederates shall also bear in mind how France, without declaring war, and against all people's rights, in the course of a few years, took the landgraviates of Elsass [Alsace] and Breisgau [Germany], the Forest Cantons,20 the Black Forest [Germany] and the free count’s domain21 away from the House of Austria, and likewise brought the duchy of Lothringen [Lorraine] and the most important fortresses and passes in Savoy [France] into its dominion, and, for this reason, the confederates of Germany and have been almost entirely isolated. It is thus clear that, because of this action of France's, a similar danger threatens for the confederates as did at that time because of [Duke Karl of] Burgundy. To the defense of them in those days the everlasting compact had been concluded [1474 at Konstanz]. The emperor then asked the confederates to strictly execute the everlasting hereditary agreement, to let neither food, water nor troops, munitions or horses reach his enemies, and eventually to call back existing troops or private persons in the service of his opponent or, certainly, to cause that they ought not be used against him. Finally, the confederates should take up arms with and next to the emperor, so as to again reconquer the cities and lands that were taken away from the House of Austria, and to unite the member states useful to the confederates. Each confederate member state shall inform Envoy von Stauffach whether it is willing to get involved in this project and what military strength it could place at the disposal of the emperor.

18 Dr. Th. v. Liebenau, in the Gazette for Swiss History, X. issue, No. 1, pg. 180 f. 19 With the member states of Zürich, Berne, Uri, Basel, Freiburg, Solothurn and Schaffhausen he himself was said to be highly respected at the imperial palace (Dierauer, History of the Swiss Confederation III, pg. 546). [Canton] Uri Colonel Seb. Peregrin Zwyer interceded in the same way. 20 The “Forest Cantons” [Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden], Säckingen [Germany], Laufenburg [Canton Aargau], Waldshut [Germany], Rheinfelden [Canton Aargau] (Besieged in 1637 by Duke Bernhard of [Germany]). S. Dierauer III, pg. 534 ff. 21 See above, pg. 25 [in “The Elmers” chapter (pg. 16 in the SW translation)]. Thus were the emperor's instructions, which Stauffacher conveyed, first of all, to Luzerne. The Luzerne council likewise entered into the matter as early as on the 18th of August, and decided to express to the emperor the sincerest thanks “for the most gracious recollection and remembrance”, in whatever situation the Confederacy finds itself at present. As regards the reading of the everlasting hereditary agreement with the House of Austria, it was further decided to adhere to this agreement, on the other hand, also to discontinue all “actions and deeds” which could interrupt the undisturbed peace and prosperity of the fatherland. With regard to the requested help for the reconquering of the lost lands, the Luzerne council of itself was able to give no firm answer, but promised to be willing to bring up the emperor's request at the next confederate Tagsatzung. Luzerne's answer was thus a “court decision (friendly but unreliable)” which hardly aroused great hopes; in like manner, our Stauffacher, or Lord von Stauffach, as he called himself, appeared to have obtained no better answers also in [Old Cantons] Obwalden and Appenzell. Obwalden was willing to let it remain (on the 20th of August) with a decision which the Tagsatzung had prepared on the same matter in Baden [Canton Aargau] (on the 2nd-19th of July), and Appenzell was in a position to declare (on the 24th of August) that no violations of the hereditary agreement may be charged to it; however, because of the importance of the matter, the concern must undergo a renewed mutual discussion later at a more suitable time. In Glarus the concern came before the council on the 8th-18th of September and they decided the hereditary agreement must be adhered to with unswerving loyalty; on the other hand, the question regarding eventual assistance must be discussed at a general confederate Tagsatzung.

In Schwyz, the emperor's letter was greeted with pleasure, and the guarantee was given to the emperor that they will observe the hereditary agreement faithfully, as up until now. On the other hand, the person of Lord von Stauffach aroused obvious dislike in Schwyz ̶ the native land of Werner Stauffacher. In a [26 Aug 1644] letter to Colonel Seb[astian] Per[egrin] Zwyer of Uri [an agent of the emperor], the Schwyz council remarked: “We also know to have to keep an open ear to the lords whose virtues are near the imperial hoof, as we understand, and then we know, in the meantime, of the death of nobleman Landvogt [Marx Jacob] von Schönau [Germany] as an imperial agent; likewise, for the sake of trust, which we convey to him by hand-held Bluets [flowers], we know not to conceal as alarming to us to come to learn that the initiating credential is directed to one von Stauffach, whose noble family lived of old here in this our canton with singular honor, but we know them no more in life, yet recognize, in particular, that such families for years immemorial left the world and were buried with posthumous good reputation and honorary title; by so much more must we be amazed when this Johann Dietrich, when he was related to Glarus, should be allowed to claim and boast of this line and family, since he himself knows well that he has invented from what origins his line depends in the presence of our authorities (everywhere he wanted to establish his pretended proof in such a way). Moreover, we, in a friendly way, request the lords to represent properly these our very well-grounded misgivings to the requisite old cantons on our behalf, and to do the necessary disengaging, also to provide, when these conclusions shall be caused by these or other opinions, that we be spared from this usually, also in other matters, slanderous man; except for this man, we will preferably be concerned to render and present our honorable foreign common devotion and duty.”

When, in this letter, the gentlemen of Schwyz refused to acknowledge the relationship of the imperial royal envoy with the venerable family of their Werner Stauffacher, and Dr. Liebenau22,

22 Liebenau, loc.cit., pg. 118. on the basis of this letter, rejected the origin of the Glarner Stauffachers from Schwyz, then this, thereby, surely goes way too far. Not only did so long a distance lie between the appearance of Hans Dietrich Stauffach and the time of Werner Stauffacher that, with the incompleteness of the record at that time, or rather, the absence of such, the proof attempted from Hans Dietrich Stauffach might well fail ̶ also all depends on Schwyz, that a shadow falls on the name of the venerable first ancestors of the Schwyzer Stauffachers, no thanks to this braggart von Stauffach; and that even all the more, also after they had allowed themselves to be fooled for some time by him and had lent him their high governmental assistance. Already 25 years before his previously recounted appearance as imperial royal envoy, the same Hans Dietrich Stauffach had repeatedly used the influence of the gentlemen of Schwyz for himself. As we learned from the proceedings of 1595 (above, pg. 98 [pg. 4 in the SW translation]), Cantonal President Dietrich Stauffacher possessed properties in the Rheintal. These seem to have devolved upon Hs. [Hans] Dietrich Stauffacher as heir and brought them into conflict with Appenzell and its Landvogt Altherr. Probably because of the Schwyzers and by means of these remaining Catholic member states which the co-regency in the Rheintal was due to win over for itself, Hans Dietrich Stauffacher transferred his place of residence to Schwyz and also joined the Catholic confession. In this way he, no doubt, agreed favorably with the gentlemen of Schwyz, while he upset his Glarner relationship, so that they called back his family. During the 27th of July in 1619, a conference of representatives from Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Zug dealt with this matter and accepted this, “what Hans Dietrich Stauffacher from Glarus, whose wife and child had been taken away, had reported on and had wanted its lords and masters to record”.23

During the time that Schwyz had granted Stauffacher the desired support, a decision favorable for Stauffacher occurred on the 6th of March in 1622 in [Canton St. Gallen] at a conference of member states Schwyz, Glarus (represented by Banneret Sebastian Marti) and Appenzell Inner-Rhodes. The Swiss Legislative Record (V, 2, pg. 258) reported about it: This conference was appointed in order to make an amicable decision in the litigation between the government of Appenzell Outer-Rhodes and a certain private person on the one hand and Hans Dietrich Stauffacher from Glarus, presently settled at Schwyz, on the other hand. As representative of the party from Appenzell Outer-Rhodes appeared Konrad Zellweger, cantonal president, Hermann Zydler, of the council, and Hans Niderer; from the other party, Hans Dietrich Stauffacher with Friedrich Beeler, of the council. According to the hearing, both parties received the following amicable decision: Considering that the government of Outer-Rhodes drew this business to their attention and “talked about 166 Gulden expenses” to Stauffacher, in accordance with the agreement set up at [Canton Appenzell Outer-Rhodes]; considering that he, but for that purpose, might not have to come, but that to him even greater expenses had been caused, the rulers of Outer-Rhodes should pay Stauffacher 420 imperial dollars on 2 fixed dates, not including the settlement of his wife. Those of Appenzell are free to make restitution for these expenses with the interested parties. Each party shall bear half the expenses accumulated in Rapperswil. All libelous words shall be hurtful in honor to no one, but shall be entirely withdrawn, be dead and gone. The envoys from Appenzell accept all for reference, but receive the instructions that their lords and masters shall communicate their decision to Schwyz and Glarus within 14 days. If this decision by one or the other party was not considered acceptable, then it is not prejudicial for their rights; on the other hand, if it was accepted, then all applicable seizures are therefore terminated; the settlement and the inherited property in arrears is to be

23 Swiss Legislative Record V, 2, pg. 83. handed over to Stauffacher.

Since Appenzell Outer-Rhodes could not, or would not, approve of this decision, Stauffacher's petition came 4 weeks later ̶ on the 4th of April in 1622 ̶ once more before a conference of the VII Catholic old cantons, which gave Stauffacher a letter on this from Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, that they would like to accept the amicable decision issued at Rapperswil, failing which they would permit him to summon them again before the 3 old cantons. Should Outer-Rhodes not accept the amicable decision, and not make its appearance at Rapperswil on the citation by Schwyz, then, nonetheless, the legal decision was made by the prescribed envoys, with them then the matter will have rested. (Swiss Legislative Record V, 2, pg. 271.)

Against this decision Appenzell Outer-Rhodes entered a protest and demanded that the settlement of the matter in dispute belonged to it, or else it would appeal to the confederate law. Since the matter had obviously taken on a denominational character ̶ this was the time when the “Glarner litigation”, which led to the 1623 cantonal agreement [see “The Elmers” chapter, pg. 19 (pg. 12 in the SW translation)], also stirred up tempers ̶ , Appenzell brought its litigation with Stauffacher before the conference of IV Evangelical member states on the 15th of November in 1622. The V old cantons had authorized Stauffacher to seize the property of the Outer-Rhodes cantonal citizens where he met with such in the lord’s domain under joint administration, up to the satisfaction of his claims, and Stauffacher, as a result, had had eight pack-horses loaded with wine to Cantonal President Schüss seized by the cantonal governor in [Canton] . Despite the proposed “consolation”, this seizure had also not been cancelled. Because the matter could easily lead to expansions, the representatives of Appenzell Outer-Rhodes asked that someone go to them with good advice at hand. It was considered advisable that Zürich, in the name of the IV cities, address a first, friendly letter to Luzerne, to the attention of the V old cantons, in which it was desired that the seizure be cancelled in exchange for the offered consolation, with unwonted reprisals to be stopped, and this action was referred to Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, where she [Luzerne] was associated; furthermore, in this letter, when they should insist on their opinion, that they immediately notify the referred-to appointed sets [arbiters] from Outer-Rhodes and Malstatt24 [Germany] and they should be required to do the same.25 Outer-Rhodes, of the opinion that little was accomplished by letters, requested that Zürich, in the name of the IV cities in Outer-Rhodes, send the expenses of a legation to the V old cantons. To this proposal the envoys agreed.26

What the result of this resolution was I have so far not discovered. Perhaps the Schwyzers finally understood of what breed their protégé was. I would conclude this from it, that he thought it proper to leave Schwyz again and to return to Canton Glarus, certainly not to Matt, where his relatives had hardly accepted him in a friendly way already because of his change of denomination, but to Näfels, the capital at that time of the Catholics. We meet with him as a resident there in 1631. In this year the same Zürich reported to Glarus:27 The proprietor at The Stars in Zürich, Jakob Jaggli, made a complaint about it, that Hans Dietrich Stauffacher in

24 Place of negotiations. 25 The same number of sets (arbiters) designated. 26 Swiss Legislative Record V, 2, pg. 316. 27 Zürich State Archive, vol. IV, 91. Missives from 1631-32. Glarner, State Archive: Letter from the citizens and council of the city of Zürich to the pious, prudent, respectable, in particular good faithful friends, beloved old confederates in Glarus from the 23rd of July in 1631. Näfels, had borrowed a horse from him, supposedly in order to ride to Baden [Canton Aargau] with it; however, he had ridden to Piemont [region in NW Italy] with it. After approximately 11 weeks he had again appeared in Zürich, whereupon the proprietor of The Stars had obtained an attachment against him. As a result, Stauffacher had wanted to buy the horse, supposedly for 72 Fl., and had made a vow in the presence of the mayor to pay the amount, if the attachment was cancelled and a messenger was given to him to take home. Only Stauffacher had sent the messenger back without money. The Glarus council was willing now to order the Stauffacher payment.

I think this information easily identifies the character of Lord Dietrich von Stauffach, and we scarcely wonder, for this reason, that the Schwyz rulers refused to accept him any more in 1644 as a descendant of their Werner Stauffacher. What astonishes us, to be sure, is rather the following, that he played his role for so long and the mission mentioned at the beginning was transferred to him in the royal imperial services28 29. The denominational tension of that time (the 30 Years War) doubtless explains many a thing.

The minutes of the Evangelical Landsgemeinde tell us of 2 additional Stauffachers of the following ̶ 18th ̶ century; these election proceedings, minus the Stauffachers themselves, might hold an interest for you as the political customs at that time. Under the 27th of April in 1785, the minutes of the Landsgemeinde reported: “Instead of Evangelical Treasurer Heizen, Treasury Official Conrad Stauffacher from Matt has been elected for a term of 6 years as the Evangelical treasurer, with the same conditions as his predecessor.” The Landsgemeinde of the 27th of April had met until 7 o'clock in the evening without finishing their entire order of business and decided, for this reason, to finish the remaining business on the 11th of May (the general Landsgemeinde occurred on the intervening Sunday, the 4th of May). This second Evangelical Landsgemeinde had to notify the presiding cantonal vice-president, Joh. Heinrich Zwicki, that Treasury Official Stauffacher30, who held the Evangelical treasurer position for 14 days “did not accept, also, moreover, further in the rear part [the south of the canton], nobody at all wanted to buy [a raffle ticket], so the cantonal citizens had realized that this office should be raffled by those 6 remaining men who had already run in the election 14 days before, and the highly respected War-Councillor Peter Zwicki, the son of the highly-regarded Cantonal Vice-President Zwicki, had been elected as Evangelical treasurer for 6 years”.

And so Treasury Official Conrad Stauffacher declined his election as Evangelical Treasurer, also, in general, nobody from the hinterland wanted to allow himself to be elected for this place in the

28 In a letter of the 13th of Sept. in 1633, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes reported to Zürich: Appenzell Inner-Rhodes has declared yesterday to the embassy of Appenzell Outer-Rhodes that they must rout Sweden from Constance [Sweden was laying siege to Constance as part of the Thirty Years War]. Also yesterday Cantonal Governor Braubühler and Captain Suter of Appenzell, the Imperial Cavalry Master B. Thiel and the r e n e g a d e Stauffacher, who was also in the imperial services, had gathered together in Rorschach [Canton St. Gallen], after which Thiel had gone into the St. Gallen monastery, but Staffacher had set out in a little boat for Lindau [Imperial free city on Lake Constance]. ̶ According to this, Stauffacher was already in the royal imperial services in 1633. 29 The complaint by Schwyz to Emperor Ferdinand appears not to have been in vain, since he was not employed on a similar mission again in the future. Liebenau, at the place mentioned, pg. 118. 30 Treasury Official Conr. Stauffacher, born in 1743, died in 1820 (also federal councillor and judge, a member of the Schwanden district court at the time of the [1798-1803]). lottery31, we can imagine. The reason lay probably in the above-reported final clause: “with the *same conditions as his predecessor”. As we conclude from the 1779 minutes, his predecessor had to pay 14 Fl. at his election and 20 Fl. into the Evangelical arsenal.

If, indeed, the 1785 election proceedings seemed strange enough to us, so is this even more the case with a 1795 election proceeding, at which another Stauffacher was made happy by the lottery. It was a question of the position of an honorary envoy to Lauis [, Canton Tiscino]. Also, previously, occasionally eight had been selected in the lottery for this position. But now the envy, that considered such a state position as a cow to be milked, had inspired the cantonal citizens to let this and other cantonal positions be raffled among all cantonal citizens who were of age. And so, from the 30th of May to the 2nd of June in 1795, the great office- and service-lottery was held (the so-called “bucket lottery”), and on this occasion, as a result of the lottery, Fridolin Stauffacher, Schnäbelig, in Matt was elected as envoy to Lauis. He had burdens: 10 Fl. 40 Sch. into the Evangelical treasury and 20 Fl. into the Evangelical arsenal, on account of his “riding up” into his new office. However, it might only just now occur to the Fridolin Stauffacher who was elected as a result of the lottery that the functions of an honorary envoy to Lauis were performed unaided, not only with regard to the 34 Fl., which he naturally should have to pay in cash, but also with regard to the personal achievements associated with the mission. Just 17 years old, Fridolin Stauffacher (son of Heinrich Stauffacher and Ursula Elmer, baptized on the 26th of November in 1777) had perhaps never before in his life been seated on a horse, and, since he could not yet reach Lugano by the railway at that time, but had to ride over the Gotthard [Pass – a dangerous high mountain pass between Cantons Uri and Tiscino], had, therefore, no doubt been in a position to perform the “honorary ride” scarcely with greater rank and, likewise, smaller joy. But he could also easily imagine what a figure he would make, who perhaps could hardly read, much less write, when examining the office reports and the accounts of the cantonal governor next to the envoys from Bern and Zürich. Grounds enough not to accept the fulfillment of the honorary envoy's position by himself. On the other hand, there were people who gladly rode on horseback over the mountains as honorary envoys, and, for this honor, not only paid our Fridolin Stauffacher the required 34 Fl., but gladly also even gave him a gratuity in addition. Thus announced the same minutes which reported the election of Stauffacher, again: “Federal Councillor and old Cantonal Secretary Schlittler had purchased this envoy, which my gracious Lord, likewise, had accepted, according to the council minutes.” As it seems, this sale also led Fridolin Stauffacher to permanent residence in . Both of his daughters, Ursula and Anna Maria, married citizens in that place, and, likewise, he himself found his last resting-place there, according to the death register, on the 21st of September in 1839, “killed in an accident”.

A more serious military mission fell, in 1802, to Captain Dietrich Stauffacher (born on the 13th of August in 1773, married in 1802 in Lugano to Josepha Lepary in Lugano [sic]; died on the 28th of April in 1816 in Florence [Italy]), son of above-mentioned (pg. 107 [pg. 9 in the SW translation]) Treasury Official Conrad Stauffacher. In the Lugano district, in 1802, a rebellion against the payment of state taxes arose. Several hundred armed farmers approached the city and sent deputies with the message that they were resolved to pay no more state taxes. Captain Dietrich Stauffacher, “commandant of the Helvetian troops stationed in the Italian canton,

31 Concerning the lottery, see above, pg. 20 [in “The Elmers” chapter (pg. 12 in the SW translation)]. g Matt area Flurname, meaning “little beak”. [SW] assembled some soldiers in a hurry, attacked the insurgents and dispersed them”.32

And, with that, we have stepped over into the 19th century, so, a few years after this farmer rebellion in Lugano, we encounter in Canton Glarus a very sorry sight, in which a Stauffacher appears as central figure, and which is also again indicative of the difference of then and now. On the 17th of May in 1807, Bartholome Stauffacher from Matt was put to death at the Glarus place of execution by the hangman, and his execution certainly did not happen, by any chance, because he had made himself guilty of a murder; it happened as atonement for robberies of which he had been guilty, partly on the Bishop Alp, partly in Matt itself. The value of the stolen articles was fixed at 20 Gulden, at the most, so today would have earned the criminal hardly a few years in prison. To be sure, he had already been punished 6 times because of robbery, and, therefore, he appeared to be an incorrigible, and, since the canton had no penal institution for punishment of criminals, outside of the fine and exile from the canton, only corporal punishment and exhibition in the pillory were available, but, with Bartholome Stauffacher, this proved to be ineffective, the council believed, that is to say, the judicial authorities had to progress to the ultima ratio [last resort], to the death penalty. With reason, therefore, minister Andreas Tschudi (minister from Mitlödi), who had to deliver the “standspeech” [remarks delivered standing at the graveside] at the execution, remarked: “How sad it is, certainly, that, if worse comes to worst, to prevent men of this race from doing harm, no other alternatives remain to us than to send them either out of the canton, a burden to another, or to execute them! Will we then not yet allow ourselves to be impelled by this disgrace to make appropriate discipline arrangements? ̶ Why do we still hesitate to take a job in hand that is so absolutely necessary? How can we fail so completely to put into action all methods and authorities? But if not ̶ why then would the blood of this unfortunate not bear witness against us ? Whom does it not touch in the heart! ̶ Might we never more come to grief because of a lack of institutions, and be forced to desecrate this familiar ground with the blood of an unfortunate resident of our fatherland.33

Twenty-nine years after this Stauffacher execution, an execution took place in Glarus one last time: on the 24th of November in 1836, shoemaker R. Michel was executed; he had killed a Stauffacher ̶ the Federal Councillor's wife, B. Stauffacher, born Kundert.

We mention also, in addition, 2 accidents that affected members of the Stauffacher family:

Under the 14th of June in 1782, the Matt death book reported: Peter Stauffacher (born on the 16th of November in 1757, died on the 18th [sic] of December in 1781), who, because he went out in an entirely thoughtless, fearless and foolhardy way on the 28th [sic] of December in1781 and left his wife and a half-year old child in the house, for this reason and purpose, in order to chase a rabbit in a hole, to track down and to catch it, the unfortunate had been carried away by a huge landslide of snow or avalanche, on the middle Staffel there, called Winkel, adjacent to the Kaltbadh (Krauch valley), and had been found there on the 12th of June in 1782, on a Sunday evening, and was buried there on the 14th.

The second of the above-mentioned accidents aroused even more general sympathy. It concerned

32 Heinzelmann, Little Swiss Chronicle III, pg. 126. 33 D. Legler, “The Death Sentences of the 19th Century”, Historical Yearbook XI, pg. 34. h Matt area Flurnamen: Staffel = step; Winkel = corner; Kaltbad = cold bath. [SW] Oswald Stauffacher (born on the 22nd of December in 1766), who was killed in an accident on the 27th of April in 1829: On the 27th of April an avalanche broke loose on top of the Plattenberg [mountain above Matt] and swept away 16 workers who were occupied with snow clearance. The above-named Oswald Stauffacher, lifeless, 2 others, seriously injured, and the rest, all more or less injured, albeit none of them seriously, were pulled out again.

From the second half of the 19th century we still have to mention an outstanding artist by means of his accomplishments. We do it the more so as we “practical Glarners” do not exactly distinguish ourselves by accomplishments in the area of art. The one who had done that was J o h a n n e s S t a u f f a c h e r [picture added by SW], who died on the 4th of July in 1916 at the age of 66. After he was educated as a designer, above all in Paris, and had already acquired a name through various publications, “in the spring of 1888, he was called by the Commercial Directorium in St. Gallen as the teacher and director at the School of Applied Arts there and the Industrial and Commercial Museum [now the Textile Museum], which was associated with it, in which place he continued until 1904. With high enthusiasm and often almost superhuman devotion, he dedicated himself during these 16 years to the education of younger talent, through which he displayed an exceptional teaching aptitude. After that, in St. Gallen, following his longing for independence, he inaugurated a similar school of his own for applied art design, in which he now worked as a free man and could train his young people individually, entirely according to his artistic ideals. His cheerful and thorough instructions also brought him fine success and the grateful devotion of his students. In this last period of his life, Series I and II of his illustrated book, “The Stauffacher School”, were also published, with the brochure “Education or Discipline”, and very accurate floral patterns for gowns, borders, small cloths, lace, and things like that, in which the ladies especially take a real pleasure” (Dr. E. Buß, in his memorial address on J. Stauffacher).

Whatever his activity in the service of the Swiss embroiderer, to which he devoted his entire energy, produced as a consequence, it was, above all, the flowers which he knew how to capture in his own style and whose beauty he knew how to reproduce in a frankly inexhaustible fashion. “His rose ribbons and bouquets in the finest and most delicately detailed execution in sonorous and shaded colors are true poems. All his drawings and paintings breathe the warm joyfulness of nature and life, and, for this reason, disperse sunshine and joy.” As already indicated, he had, however, also earned a name for himself as an author. As his masterpiece, we designate his “Educational Journeys: Candid Observations About Art And Life, And Especially About Artistic And Arts-And-Crafts Educational And Cultural Matters”, published in 1897, in which the feather [pen] of the author and teacher and the pencil of the artist got an equal chance to speak. After the report on his studies in Münich, Dresden, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Paris and Menton [France] follow ones on the design school in St. Gallen and “my sort of schoolmaster” in St. Gallen. To characterize his writing style, I single out as an “illustration sample” what he wrote on pg. 105-06 about Raphael's “Sistine Madonna” (in the Dresden Gallery) [picture added by SW]: “Michelangelo and Raphael, both giants, both creators of titanic works, and yet ̶ how very distinct they are from one another! Michelangelo is weighty, magnificent in the fundamental ideas and of an overwhelming strength and self-control in the working-out of his conceptions. When viewing his works rich in ideas, I have an oppressive feeling: 'You are powerful, and I am weak!' He makes me shiver with his magnificence. T h e loveliness, however, which my heart longs for, that he had not depicted.”

“R a p h a e l does not overwhelm me, ̶ he takes hold of my hand gently and lovingly and leads me upward into a light, wonder-rich world full of gorgeous colors, grace and rapture. Raphael is a wonder-worker, who reveals to you his own world and his own heaven in the most luminous colors and never has need of an explanatory schoolmaster .34 What he shows you is so much the perfect expression of the feelings and thoughts which underlie the work that each countryman thinks it is surely self-evident that the picture looks just so and not otherwise ̶ exactly so, as he regarded the most intricate wonder of nature, likewise, as something self-evident .”

“This Madonna and this Christ Child are s o r e a l, so wholly and entirely the m o s t s u b l i m e the mother and child could be, if the world would be a paradise; they are so noble and, in their essence, so pure and godlike at the same time, that we find it entirely natural that they are able to travel upon a cloud. Just as natural and self-evident is the reverence of both worshiping figures. However, the two angels who lean on the lower border of the picture reveal the great master even more. I do not mean that the vast superiority of the master is to be sought after in the life-like qualities of their anatomical properties and in the consummate beauty and delightful innocence of these angels. God forbid! The witticism is that these delightful children's

34 The above-mentioned words “never...schoolmaster” are stretched out by me. They express with a few words how Raphael's art differs from the art of the futurists and other modernists, and what also characterizes Stauffacher's art. “His accuracy with respect to nature awakens in him also the most decisive dislike for all unnaturalness, for all simulation, affectation, smugness, and long-windedness in art, literature and life” (Dr. Buß). Postscript. Next to Stauffacher's personal characteristics, I must also still single out a place for his “Educational Journeys”. On pg. 268 he writes: “I cannot withhold from my friends the following superb conclusion of this singularly valuable work (it is from the theme of the discourse); because no reader of my book should get the suspicious idea that I would have a happy ending after all the plain-spoken frankness, which perhaps offends the guilty, to get carried away out of pure friendship with an exaggerated or even groundless praise. The praise of cousin or friend is to me so thoroughly hated that I would be just as little able to give it as I myself would be in a position to endure it. The mutual assurance of fame is certainly a well-known and much used method for authors, painters, sculptors, musicians and critics who want to make a name for themselves. We, however, are not in need of this.” eyes gaze in wonder at something great, heavenly, that float up above, b e y o n d t h e p i c t u r e. With this wonder they give us the perfect certainty that we have been lifted up into a world in which still other ideal shapes float along upon rosy clouds.” “Little by little the visitor departs from the gallery. It is completely silent all around me. I forget the great conflicts and problems of our time. I feel like a dreamer, who hears the wings rustle, great, white wings. Also now [Heinrich] L e u t h o l d ' s spirit is with me, and his beautiful sonnet, “The Art”, is the proper music which harmonizes with my peaceful soul, spacious and festive, in the presence of this magnificent painting.” ̶ “Even Raphael had to go away from here. He died in the spring of the year 1520 of an intense fever in Rome. Living in princely circumstances, friendly with the powerful and wise of the world, surrounded by the luxuriant nature of the south, he had sated his eyes and his heart with the beauty of this lovely earth, and his works are the gratitude which the artist owed to his creator for so much happiness and joy. In the midst of his most superior creative work and in the fullness of his power and his happiness, the one pardoned by God was allowed to die quickly. Thus he stands in youthful beauty for all time before the spirit of those who believe that the tormented human race is being liberated by Art, Beauty and by Life from the grueling, frenzied bustling and racing into which we have fallen through a sceptical, materialistic view of life.”

* * *

According to the 1763 cantonal tax roll, the Stauffachers were represented in Canton Glarus exclusively in Matt, but here as the most numerous family: of the 144 Matt taxpayers, 40 were Stauffachers (with a taxable property of 7,100 Fl.). In 1876, the tax rolls for Matt show 37 taxpayers (taxable property 69,000 Fr.), for Glarus, 4 taxpayers (taxable property 37,000 Fr.), for Engi, 3 taxpayers (taxable property 15,000 Fr.), for Netstal35, likewise 3, for Haslen 2 taxpayers (taxable property 5,000 Fr.) and for , 1, altogether 50 taxpayers with a taxable property of 126,000 Fr. In regard to the number of taxpayers, they stood in first place for Matt in spite of the little decline, for the entire canton, on the other hand, in 15th place.

As regards the meaning of names, the Stauffacher family belongs, like those of the Elmers, Beglingers, Bönigers, and Leuzingers, in the group who owe their names to their original home. However, where the Stauffach (or Staub-ach; ach = aa = Bach [brook] or stream) is that gave them the name will probably be hardly more ascertained by questioning.

35 On the 2nd of May in 1777 Fridolin Stauffacher bought the Tagwen* right for himself and Hans Peters from Matt. * Tagwen - an ancient Glarner term, from at least the 6th century A.D., which is still used today in Canton Glarus to denote the commune of the citizens, i.e. those who have inherited or purchased the Tagwen rights (this may only partially coincide with the political commune). It is derived from Tage Wann, meaning the work someone could perform in one day in the commonly-held fields, pastures and forests. Over the years the number of Tagwen in the canton has varied considerably, with the present-day number being 29. Also its duties have changed – from jointly working on and enjoying the benefits of its common property, to administering all the commune’s public interests, to (today) administering and enjoying the benefits of its common property. [SW]